Old Blog #3: The Un-American American

I've decided to get back to blogging, and in doing that I've also decided to go down to only one blog, rather than the three I was working on previously (Murfreesboro Burning, The Zombie Zebra, and What do you think I am, magic?). Since those actually had a few good posts (any many, many more bad posts), I'm going to start out my new blog by re-using some of my old material. These will be duly noted as "Old Blogs".

Probably the most interesting, and perhaps most galling, thing I have been accused of is being un-American. Several times over that accusation has been flung at me, in any form from not standing firm enough behind the armed forces, to the more pointed directions to go back to where I came from. To both of these I am trying to decide whether to grit my teeth and growl at the hate, or smile at how ridiculous it is.  Go back to where I came from? Alright, so should I go back to the military base in southern California where I was born? Wait... did I just say military base? That's right, not only was I born in America to Americans, I was born on a military base, the biological daughter of a Marine (let's add to the fact that both my biological parents had just-off-the-rez Native American grandparents, and... yeah, there's really no where for me to go). Not only was my birth father a Marine, but my adopted father was a Korean veteran, only sent home when his brother was killed there. In fact, should I like to visit what is left of my dad, I have to go to Middle Tennessee Veteran's Cemetery. His father, my grandfather, fought in World War I, even though it meant he had to fudge his age and change his name because he was too young. There hasn't been a generation of my family that hasn't fought for America in the century both immigrant portions have been here, and those that didn't fight built planes, sent care packages, and dealt with the shortages caused by war. The only time I've ever seen one of my cousins was when his submarine docked in San Diego and he had leave to eat dinner at our house. When I was younger, before I ruined my knee and became so sick that life became almost unbearable, I wanted nothing more than to join the Air Force just like my Papa. So don't say I'm un-American; if being American is determined by how much you love the armed forces, there are few who are more American than me.

People may say I'm un-American, but in my opinion there is nothing more un-American than trying to subvert the Constitution, to change laws that should not be changed just because they don't like how a person looks, or who they love, or in what way they worship. We are America, all of us, be we white, black, brown, red, yellow, striped, polka-dot or paisley. We are America, be we straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, transsexual, or what have you. We are America, no matter we worship Jehovah, G-d, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Kerridwen, Danu, Aakuluujjusi, the Holy Crow, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or no one at all. We are America, the many colors, the many flavors, sounds, scents and feelings. We are America.

This land is your land, this land is my land, this land is our land.

This land was made for you and me.

In memory of my dad, James E. Butts Sr., USAF

1 April 1932 - 9 March 2010

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” - George Washington

“Where liberty is, there is my country.” - Benjamin Franklin

Old Blog #2: I'm always up for a bit of iconoclasm!

I've decided to get back to blogging, and in doing that I've also decided to go down to only one blog, rather than the three I was working on previously (Murfreesboro Burning, The Zombie Zebra, and What do you think I am, magic?). Since those actually had a few good posts (any many, many more bad posts), I'm going to start out my new blog by re-using some of my old material. These will be duly noted as "Old Blogs". 

One morning several months ago, I dropped Nana off for dominoes and the church sign read "marriage is between a man and a woman, Ephesians 5". Being the curious person I am, I actually go home and read Ephesians 5. I'm guessing the specific verse they're referring to is Ephesians 5:3: "Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God's people."

Let's break this down, shall we? By various interpretations over the years, "sexual immorality" can mean anything from having sex before marriage to any position other than missionary to sterile people having sex, as they aren’t having sex to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Marriage and sex with people of other faiths (which is sometimes extrapolated to other races, since those are different “tribes”) is also forbidden in the Bible, because “their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods" (Exodus 34:16) or “that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

Impurity, another forbidden thing, can mean anything from skin problems (Leviticus 13-14) touching and/or eating animals that are unclean (Leviticus 7:21), eating off unwashed dishes or touching the bones of the dead (Matthew 23:25-27) – Christian anthropologists not allowed? -  or eating before you wash your hands (Mark 7:2).

Greed, I would think, should be pretty straightforward, but then again, if you’re looking for a biblical definition, then I don’t know a single person who follows this law. Let us not forget that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24, 10:25; Luke 18:25). And the only person who actually isn’t greedy? The person who gives everything to the church/God and doesn’t even keep a penny for themselves (Luke 20:1-4).

Things that aren’t immoral? A wife being subordinate to the wants of her husband (no matter what you want, if he wants something different you better give it to him.) (Ephesians 5:22). Proving a woman’s virginity before she gets married. She can’t prove it? Fine and dandy to kill her. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). The best marriages are arranged, too (Genesis 24:37-38). If a woman's husband dies and she hasn't had a son, she must marry his brother and have intercourse with him until she has a son (Genesis 38:6-10). You can also keep slaves and your husband is more than welcome to go and get the slaves pregnant if he wants (Genesis 16:1-2). Oh, and as long as we’re on the subject of Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah, they were either brother and sister or uncle and niece (Genesis 20:12 says that they have the same father, while Genesis 11:29 says that she was his brother’s daughter). Having multiple wives is just fine, too, since Lamach (2 wives), Esau (3 wives), Jacob (2 wives, 1 concubine), Ashur (2 wives), Gideon (many wives and at least one concubine, the Bible isn’t really precise), Elkanah (2 wives), David (once again, the Bible isn’t precise, but he had several wives), Solomon (700 wives and 300 concubines), Rehaboam (3 wives), and Abijah (14 wives) all have more than one wife. And it must be fine, because we still refer to David as “beloved by God” and lots of people are certain that once Solomon’s temple is rebuilt Jesus will return to Earth. I can go on and on, like mentioning how if a virgin is raped she has to marry her rapist, and he has to pay her father for loss of property, because, hey, that’s all your daughter is (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or once against how those handy, dandy slaves you can own are your property as well, so you tell them who they can marry and they better do the deed and make you more little slaves (Exodus 21:4).

Now before someone tells me that I’m taking this all out of historical context and this isn’t what it means, Jesus stressed faith not laws, God accepts me for not being perfect blah blah blah let me say this: NO KIDDING. The idea of being a Christian, so far as it’s always been explained to me, is one of faith, not law or legislated morality. Most of the Old Testament (and quite a few of the New Testament) laws aren’t followed anymore as people don’t see them as requirements to get into heaven. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any modern Christians who think someone is going to hell for having a bowl haircut, eating pork, or getting a divorce from a spouse that abuses them – even though that’s forbidden in the Bible; you can only get divorced if your spouse commits a “sexual immorality”, and then you can’t get remarried (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Mark 10:12, First Corinthians 7:13, Mark 10:9, First Corinthians 7:10-11, Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 19:9 et cetera).

There’s a word for people who don’t follow their own rules and/or laws but expect other to; that word is hypocrite. Personally, I don’t give a darn what you do or don’t do in your own family house or house of worship; what I do give a darn about is when you cross the line into hypocrisy and require things or me or other while not requiring the same of yourself.  Let me be clear: I have no problems with people who are “true” Christians, those that follow the loving and selfless examples set by Christ, who truly live by the idea of “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37). Heck, I strive to be just like them (emphasis on “strive”, not “to be”). I do, however, have problems with people who pick and choose their morals and laws for the sole purpose of making other people feel bad while making themselves seem more holy.

So why don’t you leave the picking and choosing to God, worry about yourself, and follow this simple rule: This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you (John 15:12). Seems to me that if Jesus said it that plainly, then that’s a rule that really need to be followed.

Old Blog #1: The Changeling Child

I've decided to get back to blogging, and in doing that I've also decided to go down to only one blog, rather than the three I was working on previously (Murfreesboro Burning, The Zombie Zebra, and What do you think I am, magic?). Since those actually had a few good posts (any many, many more bad posts), I'm going to start out my new blog by re-using some of my old material. These will be duly noted as "Old Blogs". 

One thing about having insomnia is that the antihistamine I take to sleep (really bad reactions to sleeping pills, so I’m only allowed to take Benadryl) is making me dream like crazy. I'm not normally a person who dreams a whole lot, but I've noticed before when I take antihistamines I have some pretty wild dreams. (Now that I think about it, probably the only good thing about being too sick to work the last several months is that my skin allergies haven't bothered me, since I haven't been around cardboard and metal polish, and I don't have to worry about people brushing against me with weird soaps, detergents, or lotions. It's so weird being allergic to cardboard.) So, tangent over and back on track, the other night I had a really great dream that inspired me to work on a new story, which in and of its self is rather inconvenient considering how many other stories I have to work on at the moment, especially my "baby" which is languishing mid-chapter page 160-something on my flash drive because I can't figure out how three people cross a tundra (it's more complicated than that, but said subject is a whole blog on its own).

Most authors whose work I enjoy usually say something about doing all your research and massive outlines before starting to write the "meat" of a book, but I've always hated outlining, and I'm more of a research-as-I-go type person (exception being character names... but that's something else that requires its own blog). More important than any of that, I think, is deciding what questions you want to address in a story. "Good" books ask one question, usually a what-if (i.e. what if animals rode in a dump truck - don't laugh, that was my favorite book when I was two), which tends to be simplistic and easily answered by the text with no outside though processes required. "Better" books have the what-if, some moral / religious / ethical questions, and a what-you-should-think explanation on the second set of questions, usually the author's opinion, though "mediocre" and "better" books are often decided by whether said author is going to try and beat their opinion home with a baseball bat. Religious fiction - pick your religion, I like Wiccan / Pagan fantasy and certain Christian sci-fi - tends to be the worst; there are times when I feel like shouting at the author "okay, point made, your religion is perfect and you're wonderful because you believe in it, I'm slime because I don't. Can we get back to the story now?"

The best books, however, are those that not only present questions, but also present the questions in such a way that the reader afterward is questioning them self. When finished reading, you look at the world with new eyes, wondering about your own life, about the person next to you, about justice, about faith, about eternity...

The best books change us from the inside out.

Now, I'm not the great American novelist, but I know what I like, and I know what moves me, so usually the stories I'm working on are inspired by the questions which are bothering me the most when working on said story. My "baby" has many questions fueling it - does memory determine reality? What is fate; does it exist or is it shaped by choice? Is it better to do evil honestly or to cloak it in the name of religion? Should a person live with the ones they love always in danger, or die so those they love are safe - and thus have no time to be loved at all? I'm still sorting out my newest story, but one question that I know I have to include in it hit me rather hard: what does it mean to be human, and how is one determined to be human?

My muse / best friend / non-biological twin (we're not related but our birthdays are so close together we might as well be twins) Chris and I had this discussion last night (pity him greatly, he's the one who usually gets to listen to me rant and rage when what I'm writing is not going the way I want it to), and his opinion is that it is choice and the availability of choice that determines whether or not someone is human. Let me explain this better, the premise I am moving from is that one of the characters is a "changeling", or non-human who replaced a human infant. Their DNA is identical to human, they were raised as human, they don't remember ever being anything but human. Said character is decidedly, however, not human. Chris believes that as said character has the option at any point to choose to no longer be human, but rather revert to their non-human state, they are not human. At the same time, he also considers that any human who as the ability to change forms (his example was a man with a ring of invisibility) is also no longer human, as a regular human has no ability to choose what form they take.

While he makes a good point, I'm just not sure how much I agree with it. Anyone who has ever seen someone who has undergone far too much plastic surgery knows that just because you are born looking one way doesn't mean you will die in the same form. So since people who undergo plastic surgery choose to change their appearance, are they no longer human? What about people with tattoos, or piercings, or ritual scars as used by some tribes in various countries? Humans are not born with tattoos, piercings, or ritual scars, but am I less human because I have pierced ears, or because I had to have a tendon in my knee removed because of a birth defect and brain surgery to try and save my vision? I chose those things, the knee and brain surgeries especially not something that most humans have to choose to do, but I don't feel it makes me any less human.

So, then, what is it that makes me human? It's not an ability to think, any animal that decides to chase after prey instead of staying inside when it rains can think. Language? Apes (most notably Koko the gorilla) are fully capable of communicating with humans when taught sign language that humans can understand (which leads me to the conclusion that it is incorrect to think of animals as being unable to speak, but better to think of humans as being unable to hear). Koko has also been recorded mourning for another gorilla after it died, even putting flowers on the corpse, so feeling emotion is not a purely human ability either. One of my mom's dogs is so loyal that at times she is neurotic; when my mom and her husband went to Hawaii for two weeks one year, Breeze became so upset that she almost chewed her foot off, and the vet was threatening to give her Prozac unless she calmed down. After my dog Norlis died, Breeze became so afraid that anyone who left would never come back that when she could tell someone was leaving, she would shake so badly that the chair she was in moved. Loyalty, connection, a sense of family; watching the dogs that I've been around for the last 17 years, I'm fairly certain at times they love deeper and longer than most people I know. Insects can build, and orangutans use tools, so it isn't either of those.

This brings me to an even bigger question, one that I think is more important out of a book than in it: if it's this hard to decide what it is to be human, why is it too easy to say one human is not as good as another? Why is on religion better than the next, why is one race superior, why is one sexual preference preferable? I am human, but I don't know what it is that makes me human. All I know is that I am no better a human than anyone else. But then again maybe I'm not human, maybe my choices have just made me a changeling child.